Hello.
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 10:26, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Adrian Alonso <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Alonso <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > conf/machine/include/tune-ppc440.inc | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/conf/machine/include/tune-ppc440.inc
> > b/conf/machine/include/tune-ppc440.inc
> > index feca186..0c41db4 100644
> > --- a/conf/machine/include/tune-ppc440.inc
> > +++ b/conf/machine/include/tune-ppc440.inc
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > TARGET_CC_ARCH = "-mcpu=440"
> > BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH = "ppc440"
> > FEED_ARCH = "ppc440"
> > -PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS += "ppc440e"
> > +PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS += "ppc440 ppc440e"
>
>
> I wonder why this would be needed, I would think that PACKAGE_ARCHS
> consists of PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS and PACKAGE_ARCH (which is default
> arch constructed from BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH)
> if that was the case then ppc440 would be added to supported archs
> list already but it seems there is a disconnect between PACKAGE_ARCH
> and PACKAGE_ARCHS I am not sure if it
> is deliberate or an oversight. If it is an oversight then it should be
> fixed in bitbake.conf and that would avoid this patch.
Can somebody with more insight in bitbake.conf give us some insight here?
Right now bitbake.conf does not include PACKAGE_ARCH in PACKAGE_ARCHS.
PACKAGE_ARCHS = "all any noarch ${TARGET_ARCH} ${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS}
${MACHINE}"
If it should stay this way, would Adrian's patch be ok? I would rather get his
contributions in then having them sit to long around. Need to keep people
motivated. :)
regards
Stefan Schmidt
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
